United States v. McKibbins
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18475
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- McKibbins, age 40, chats online with an officer posing as a 15-year-old girl; he is lured toward a meeting in the Chicago suburb.
- The undercover operation culminates in McKibbins driving toward a park with federal agents surveilling him and condoms on his person, leading to his arrest.
- A detention hearing reveals a government search warrant will target McKibbins's computer and storage media; he urges family to hide the computer and related disks.
- McKibbins makes frantic calls urging concealment, attempting to have others remove or hide his computer and CDs near a gerbil cage.
- Indictment charges: (1) attempting to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activity; (2) interstate travel for a prohibited sexual act with a minor; (3) obstruction of justice for destroying evidence.
- The government sought to admit four suspected child pornography photos and over 150 profile pictures; the district court admitted them as evidence related to obstruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of images violated Rule 403 prejudice standard | McKibbins argues 403 prejudice outweighed probative value. | McKibbins asserts ruling should have excluded as unfair prejudice; government contends probative as direct evidence of obstruction. | Harmless error; 403 balancing not properly performed but overall evidence overwhelming. |
| Whether images were properly treated as direct evidence of obstruction rather than Rule 404(b) evidence | Images should be analyzed under Rule 404(b) as prior acts. | Images were direct evidence of obstructive intent rather than propensity evidence. | Images were properly treated as direct evidence on the obstruction charge; no need to decide Rule 404(b) applicability. |
| Whether the government proved the corrupt intent required by §1512(c) | The images and surrounding conduct show willful, corrupt mens rea to impede official proceedings. | Argues insufficient nexus between images and obstruction intent. | Sufficient to show corrupt intent and obstruction given surrounding admissions and conduct. |
| Whether materiality is a required element for §1512(c) conviction or merely enhances probability of intent | Materiality is not required; the statute targets corrupt conduct, not materiality. | Materiality may be relevant to show corrupt motive. | Materiality not mandatory for conviction; however, stronger materiality could support intent; not reversal here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arthur Andersen, LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (Supreme Court, 2005) (high burden to prove intent in obstruction offenses)
- United States v. Matthews, 505 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2007) (intent element in obstruction; corrupt mens rea required)
- United States v. Black, 625 F.3d 386 (7th Cir. 2010) (no materiality requirement for §1512(c); obstruction to impede government’s case)
- United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2010) (disapproved ‘inextricably intertwined’ rationale for Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Hicks, 635 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rule 403 balancing required when admitting evidence)
- United States v. Cooper, 591 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2010) (harmless-error approach to evidentiary errors in obstruction cases)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (Supreme Court, 1997) (relevance and prejudice considerations; cumulative evidence can be prejudicial)
- United States v. Ochoa, 229 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2000) (consideration of probative value in evaluating evidence)